Razorbrains said:I dont agree with your premise that games are required to limit choice for the users benefit. They do this not for the users benefit, but because the more choices available makes the game more complex to develop. No matter what these devs are trying to say, them lowering the available actions is them trying to make the game easier not harder to develop.
You aren't wrong. Logically it much easier developing a system when then number of variables is smaller rather than larger. With VR's minimal staffing levels, and that we're 6.5 years into this already, there is a distince possibility that such a reduction is necessary to actually get this game delivered.
Vandraad said:Razorbrains said:I dont agree with your premise that games are required to limit choice for the users benefit. They do this not for the users benefit, but because the more choices available makes the game more complex to develop. No matter what these devs are trying to say, them lowering the available actions is them trying to make the game easier not harder to develop.
You aren't wrong. Logically it much easier developing a system when then number of variables is smaller rather than larger. With VR's minimal staffing levels, and that we're 6.5 years into this already, there is a distince possibility that such a reduction is necessary to actually get this game delivered.
So you're saying if WoW made the Shaman simply a Shaman with no talent tree, and that they can have all the passives/actives from Elemental/Enchancement/and Restoration and did that to all the classes that Blizzard could build a challenging game with all that power at your finger tips? Pfft okay, honestly it would be completely unlogical to even think that would be possible all classses would be so broken you would have to nerf everything to the ground just so they they kill mobs off GCD.
Vandraad said:Razorbrains said:I dont agree with your premise that games are required to limit choice for the users benefit. They do this not for the users benefit, but because the more choices available makes the game more complex to develop. No matter what these devs are trying to say, them lowering the available actions is them trying to make the game easier not harder to develop.
You aren't wrong. Logically it much easier developing a system when then number of variables is smaller rather than larger. With VR's minimal staffing levels, and that we're 6.5 years into this already, there is a distince possibility that such a reduction is necessary to actually get this game delivered.
I dont disagree with you, I am sure you are right actually. They want to lower the variables to deliver the game. But 8 actions is extremely low. Is there any MMO's with only 8 locked available actions? I thought ESO was slacking with only 12.
I get people are going all around the circle trying to explain this, but the simple answer is they think they need to lower the complexity to deliver. I think this is very bad idea to kill the complexity to where you can play blindfolded.
arazons said:Razorbrains said:This game already limits your available actions based on CLASS. Having a great situational spell, but not being able to use it because the game UI stops you, makes the game less fun, certainly not more fun.
Technically the UI doesnt stop you. You, stop you, by not equipping it.
A reasonable LAS is a direct way to make choices in skill/spell load out matter.
You wont win every fight. You are not supposed to win every fight, by design. And some of those fights you lose will be a result from poor planning on loadouts prior to engagement. However I suspect circumstances where you lose a fight because of poor planning will be rare. Just because you dont have the most optimal loadout for a fight doesnt mean you will automatically lose it.
There are literally dozens of MMO's with very generous limits on skills loud outs already. With that said, what is it about Pantheon that you are interested in, as opposed to any other game out there with those more generous limits? Pantheon has been marketed this way from the beginning.
So you want it a preplanned battle, loadout properly then let the game run the scenario for you, IWIN button if you loadout correctly.
I prefer a reaction based game, where you can respond the threats as you see them.
Why cant you lose even if you loadout correctly. Why not include other variables like timing, range, positioning, area of effect, and just simple RNG.
I doubt people are going to want to play hotbar manager all day.
Razorbrains said:So you want it a preplanned battle, loadout properly then let the game run the scenario for you, IWIN button if you loadout correctly.
This is a bit extreme, I said nothing of the sort.
Razorbrains said:I prefer a reaction based game, where you can respond the threats as you see them.
The game is still reaction based as all games are. You just have fewer options available to you at any given time. Which make your choices ahead of time matter more. Not to be confused with "all battles are pre-determined by load out".
Razorbrains said:Why cant you lose even if you loadout correctly. Why not include other variables like timing, range, positioning, area of effect, and just simple RNG.
I doubt people are going to want to play hotbar manager all day.
People will still lose a fight even with most optimum load out for an encounter. But on the flip side people will also win fights without the most optimum load out. Not having everything available to you at once does not ensure a loss. It actually makes it more complex, because now you have to react in a way you didnt plan for or are even prepared for. Having every possible reaction available to you at once, truly dumbs it down where there is no real effort to counter, its just click x because y.
Razorbrains said:I doubt people are going to want to play hotbar manager all day.
As opposed to playing button whack-a-mole all day? I think people are really overestimating the actual need to swap out abilities so frequently. There will be times that you need to, but I highly doubt its going to be a situation where you are swapping abilities every 5 minutes.
Vandraad said:Razorbrains said:I dont agree with your premise that games are required to limit choice for the users benefit. They do this not for the users benefit, but because the more choices available makes the game more complex to develop. No matter what these devs are trying to say, them lowering the available actions is them trying to make the game easier not harder to develop.
You aren't wrong. Logically it much easier developing a system when then number of variables is smaller rather than larger. With VR's minimal staffing levels, and that we're 6.5 years into this already, there is a distince possibility that such a reduction is necessary to actually get this game delivered.
I think you're both making... interesting assumptions.
UAS is like having lots of skill sequences/combinations available.
LAS is like adding permutations on top of those combinations.
I believe mathematically and logically, it's *more* complex, not less, though limiting choices what is situationally appropriate might reduce it just 'similar' in complexity.
To balance encounters and design combat sub-systems based on knowing which 30 skills classes have would be complex enough. To balance them *not* knowing which sub-set of 16 of 30 has been chosen? That's somehow making it 'easier'? I don't see it, in fact it was an argument I made *against* LAS back when first announced.
It might make some aspects easier, but doesn't make the whole thing easier and might well make it much harder.
It's like giving you a workforce of 30 differently skilled people to do a project, then making you split them into multiple different sub-teams to be managed and scheduled separately for particular jobs. It may make certain jobs easier, but there's a whole mid-layer of management needed to handle the overhead.
Some managers thrive on having massive teams and micro-managing. Some don't. Some say mid-management 'gets in the way'. Some would see breaking a team down is making it much more effective and less prone to error. The same jobs and projects get done. The challenge is still there but is changed.
My analogy is getting weird, but you get the point, hopefully.
And, of course, to assume it's somehow made simpler to make it easy for the devs is pretty insulting.
disposalist said:It's like giving you a workforce of 30 differently skilled people to do a project, then making you split them into multiple different sub-teams to be managed and scheduled separately for particular jobs. It may make certain jobs easier, but there's a whole mid-layer of management needed to handle the overhead.
Some managers thrive on having massive teams and micro-managing. Some don't. Some say mid-management 'gets in the way'. Some would see breaking a team down is making it much more effective and less prone to error. The same jobs and projects get done. The challenge is still there but is changed.
So you think 8 skills makes content more difficult and challenging?
So why not 7 skills, or even 1 skill? If all you had was 1 skill would that make it more challenging? Hmmmm I might agree with you if the devs didnt change the content difficulty to compensate. But of course they will now make content less complex, because they know the player has less tools to deal with the challenges.
This would be like me asking a contractor to build the empire state building with only a hammer? If all they have is one tool, then you have to lower your expectation. I would be lucky if they could build a doghouse with just 1 tool, since they wouldnt be able to cut the wood properly.
If you take the other extreme and say give 100 different actions available, there is nothing saying that one of those solutions is an automatic win. First the player would have to use it appropriately, 2nd the game could still make it just as challenging by not allowing any of the solutions to work. With more actions requires more skill.
8 active skills will give 1 or 2 at most situational skills on the bar, this is putting the game on autopilot.
Razorbrains said:
So you think 8 skills makes content more difficult and challenging?
So why not 7 skills, or even 1 skill? If all you had was 1 skill would that make it more challenging? Hmmmm I might agree with you if the devs didnt change the content difficulty to compensate. But of course they will now make content less complex, because they know the player has less tools to deal with the challenges.
This would be like me asking a contractor to build the empire state building with only a hammer? If all they have is one tool, then you have to lower your expectation. I would be lucky if they could build a doghouse with just 1 tool, since they wouldnt be able to cut the wood properly.
If you take the other extreme and say give 100 different actions available, there is nothing saying that one of those solutions is an automatic win. First the player would have to use it appropriately, 2nd the game could still make it just as challenging by not allowing any of the solutions to work. With more actions requires more skill.
8 active skills will give 1 or 2 at most situational skills on the bar, this is putting the game on autopilot.
Ultimately you need to pick a design target and iterate. If they are going for “pick two out of three group roles” in your LAS picks, then they will want to test having enough tools and options to make each feel fleshed out and valid. They also need to have the left-out option be good enough that you regret not having it on your bar, otherwise its not a choice of style and technics but just keeping the good stuff on your bar.
Balance and options are the key to a well made LAS. If there is a clear best choice then the system has failed. If a group of 6 together, given a proper group makeup, cannot have enough options to cover the known challenges in a specific zone then it also has failed. That does not mean the group needs to also be able to do their highest DPS at the same time if they need to dedicate a significant number of bar slots to have the tools to survive.
Razorbrains said:disposalist said:It's like giving you a workforce of 30 differently skilled people to do a project, then making you split them into multiple different sub-teams to be managed and scheduled separately for particular jobs. It may make certain jobs easier, but there's a whole mid-layer of management needed to handle the overhead.
Some managers thrive on having massive teams and micro-managing. Some don't. Some say mid-management 'gets in the way'. Some would see breaking a team down is making it much more effective and less prone to error. The same jobs and projects get done. The challenge is still there but is changed.
So you think 8 skills makes content more difficult and challenging?
So why not 7 skills, or even 1 skill? If all you had was 1 skill would that make it more challenging? Hmmmm I might agree with you if the devs didnt change the content difficulty to compensate. But of course they will now make content less complex, because they know the player has less tools to deal with the challenges.
This would be like me asking a contractor to build the empire state building with only a hammer? If all they have is one tool, then you have to lower your expectation. I would be lucky if they could build a doghouse with just 1 tool, since they wouldnt be able to cut the wood properly.
If you take the other extreme and say give 100 different actions available, there is nothing saying that one of those solutions is an automatic win. First the player would have to use it appropriately, 2nd the game could still make it just as challenging by not allowing any of the solutions to work. With more actions requires more skill.
8 active skills will give 1 or 2 at most situational skills on the bar, this is putting the game on autopilot.
You don't have only 8 Skills during combat. You have 8 action bar skills that you can use as well as 6 utility bar skills that you can use. Ultimately giving you a total of 14 Spells/abilities that you can use during combat. Utility spells aren't just buffs you use passively. They include other spells like Headwinds, which if you watched the shaman ability video. It's a massive on use spell that alters the state of being of a NPC you use it on. In that video they mention lots of possible spells/abilities you can use in sequence with that spell to create new effects on that npc. Like stunning the target with a stone attack when normally that stone attack only does damage. Now if you take that into consideration there are probably going to be many other spells similar to Headwinds that has synergy with other classes that you can combine. This opens up many other possible situational spells you can use. An example would be having a stone spell that deals damage but if you coordinate with your shaman you can now stun things when normally you can't.
So if one shaman in your group has Headwinds on his/her "Utility" bar and you're a Summoner with that stone spell. You now have an extra spell up your sleeve that stuns targets if you coordinate with that shaman. Now picture this but with a group of 6 people. If there are others in the group with similar synergy spells/abilites it opens up so many more spells and abilites you can use besides the normal 14.
Razorbrains said:disposalist said:It's like giving you a workforce of 30 differently skilled people to do a project, then making you split them into multiple different sub-teams to be managed and scheduled separately for particular jobs. It may make certain jobs easier, but there's a whole mid-layer of management needed to handle the overhead.
Some managers thrive on having massive teams and micro-managing. Some don't. Some say mid-management 'gets in the way'. Some would see breaking a team down is making it much more effective and less prone to error. The same jobs and projects get done. The challenge is still there but is changed.
So you think 8 skills makes content more difficult and challenging?
So why not 7 skills, or even 1 skill? If all you had was 1 skill would that make it more challenging? Hmmmm I might agree with you if the devs didnt change the content difficulty to compensate. But of course they will now make content less complex, because they know the player has less tools to deal with the challenges.
This would be like me asking a contractor to build the empire state building with only a hammer? If all they have is one tool, then you have to lower your expectation. I would be lucky if they could build a doghouse with just 1 tool, since they wouldnt be able to cut the wood properly.
If you take the other extreme and say give 100 different actions available, there is nothing saying that one of those solutions is an automatic win. First the player would have to use it appropriately, 2nd the game could still make it just as challenging by not allowing any of the solutions to work. With more actions requires more skill.
8 active skills will give 1 or 2 at most situational skills on the bar, this is putting the game on autopilot.
Your hyperbole don't help. I know what your argument is - I disagree. The extreme examples definitely show extreme LAS is wrong. Correct, of course, but pointless.
Obviously there is a 'sweet spot' where less skills adds to the challenge but doesn't feel frustrating. Joppa believes 14 + utility belt is it.
100 skills isn't an automatic win, nope, but it does mean you are rarely needing to improvise or plan or coordinate with your team. 14+ skills isn't an automatic lose, either. The arguments about content design making an encounter more challenging work for UAS, yes, AND for LAS. Encounters would need to be designed specifically for each. Neither is 'easier' or 'better'.
"More actions requires more skill"? No. More actions require *different* skill. With UAS, when an encounter questions your skill you either have the answer and pick it quickly or you don't and you struggle more. With LAS you need to plan more, but will still more often (than UAS) not have the perfect answer and need improvise and coordinate with your group. It's as simple as that.
You don't like to plan and prefer to be more independant? Fine. But that doesn't mean LAS is 'wrong' or 'lesser' as people keep asserting. It's *different*. It's perhaps debatable whether it's more of a challenge or not (though I think it quite obviously is). It's certainly debatable whether it's more 'fun' or not. Fine.
As I keep saying in this thread, I don't whole-heartedly agree with LAS, but I *do* see the logic.
I just wish people would stop with the objective assertion of their subjective opinion.
TLogan said: LAS will definitely make it harder in some situations such as : a pug with majority having a bad "loadout" equipped. I have no idea why people are saying they will now make content easier to compensate for LAS? No they definitely won't, and they wouldn't need to, let's not forget you won't be alone fighting these mobs the chances that one person with a crappy loadout will cause a group wipe is probably not high. All the other layers of difficulty will remain. There really seems to be a solution for those that just can't stand LAS : you can all be our monks in the world of Pantheon. Feign death, change your loadout anytime giving you that UAS you so crave, you're welcome.
True. Or a rogue. Or maybe another class. Maybe there will be other tactical possibilities we don't yet know of...
The assertion that encounters will be made 'easier' to compensate for LAS is silly in two ways: -
1) I don't think they are but *IF* they were having to make encounters 'easier', because LAS makes it more of a challenge, then the overall difficulty is the same. Just changed emphasis? Why would they be making encounters 'easier' if LAS weren't making it more challenging? In which case, it's fine, no?
2) They are adding LAS to make encounters more challenging *on purpose*. They *want* encounters to be more challenging. Pantheon is not supposed to be easy. You should want to plan, improvise and coordinate even in a UAS setup. LAS just means you need to do it more and more often. That's it.
Yes, with LAS you are more likely to make bad choices, especially in the planning stage, which is almost non-existent for people used to UAS, but this is the same as if encounter challenge were raised in any area, like actions per minute or dynamism. As with any aspect increasing complexity and challenge, devs have to make the decision over whether it is more fun or not.
WalkingWaste said:So if one shaman in your group has Headwinds on his/her "Utility" bar and you're a Summoner with that stone spell. You now have an extra spell up your sleeve that stuns targets if you coordinate with that shaman. Now picture this but with a group of 6 people. If there are others in the group with similar synergy spells/abilites it opens up so many more spells and abilites you can use besides the normal 14.
A UAS fan (or LAS hater) will say that you can do this, too, with UAS, but are not restricted to when you can do it.
But the point is, you won't have to do it as often and, so, you will tend not to. UAS makes players more independant and less likely to need to plan, improvise or coordinate with the group.
In actual usage, the two systems are more similar then different. It is just a change in emphasis.
disposalist said:
1) I don't think they are but *IF* they were having to make encounters 'easier', because LAS makes it more of a challenge, then the overall difficulty is the same. Just changed emphasis? Why would they be making encounters 'easier' if LAS weren't making it more challenging? In which case, it's fine, no?
2) They are adding LAS to make encounters more challenging *on purpose*. They *want* encounters to be more challenging. Pantheon is not supposed to be easy. You should want to plan, improvise and coordinate even in a UAS setup. LAS just means you need to do it more and more often. That's it.
This just makes no sense at all. If you have access to every spell to counter mechanics, the game can still make it challenging even when executed perfectly.
However LAS by default makes the encounter easier, because it allows a group to blow through bosses without even worrying about mechanics. Therefore sloppy play can easily win. Why even bother equipping special spells at all, if you can win using any ordinary spell.
When players have access to all spells, the encounters can be developed, to execute mechanics to some degree (or perfectly) or wipe. So some skill or alot of skill is required to win, all depending on how difficult or challenging they want to make it.
TLogan said: LAS will definitely make it harder in some situations such as : a pug with majority having a bad "loadout" equipped. I have no idea why people are saying they will now make content easier to compensate for LAS? No they definitely won't, and they wouldn't need to, let's not forget you won't be alone fighting these mobs the chances that one person with a crappy loadout will cause a group wipe is probably not high. All the other layers of difficulty will remain. There really seems to be a solution for those that just can't stand LAS : you can all be our monks in the world of Pantheon. Feign death, change your loadout anytime giving you that UAS you so crave, you're welcome.
Of course LAS makes it easier, are you saying a bad loadout or first timers cant complete the content at all? No chance autowipe?
If any group without a perfect loadout can beat the boss then what happens when you repeat the content with a perfect loadout? Autowin is what it sounds like. Thats EZ mode.
With UAS, the content can be designed more difficult, where even with good execution random events can still wipe the group. Because people have access to all the spells in UAS, you can require certain spells to beat certain bosses or wipe, and even more difficult where mechanics are followed perfectly, but still the encounter is difficult because of RNG.
Razorbrains said:disposalist said:1) I don't think they are but *IF* they were having to make encounters 'easier', because LAS makes it more of a challenge, then the overall difficulty is the same. Just changed emphasis? Why would they be making encounters 'easier' if LAS weren't making it more challenging? In which case, it's fine, no?
2) They are adding LAS to make encounters more challenging *on purpose*. They *want* encounters to be more challenging. Pantheon is not supposed to be easy. You should want to plan, improvise and coordinate even in a UAS setup. LAS just means you need to do it more and more often. That's it.
This just makes no sense at all. If you have access to every spell to counter mechanics, the game can still make it challenging even when executed perfectly.
Good game design is needed for UAS or LAS. Of course you can make UAS a challenge. The difference is LAS adds challenge *beyond* the encounter mechanics design. It enhances the need to plan, improvise and coordinate with group members when the skill you *ideally* would use, you haven't loaded.
Razorbrains said:However LAS by default makes the encounter easier, because it allows a group to blow through bosses without even worrying about mechanics. Therefore sloppy play can easily win. Why even bother equipping special spells at all, if you can win using any ordinary spell.
Huh? LAS doesn't stop you needing 'special' skills. You are just assuming that encounters for LAS will be 'dumbed down' to somehow not need special skills. A totally weird assumption. LAS simply means you may not have access to all your special skills. It means when you don't have the *ideal* skill loaded, you have to improvise and coordinate with the group to achieve a win. It's a greater challenge, not lesser.
Razorbrains said:When players have access to all spells, the encounters can be developed, to execute mechanics to some degree (or perfectly) or wipe. So some skill or alot of skill is required to win, all depending on how difficult or challenging they want to make it.
And when players have access to a limited set of the same skills, encounters could be exactly the same, but players will not only have to pick the right skills, they may have to improvise when the 'right' skill is unavailable.
*shrug* I don't know how many different ways I can say it. LAS has the same need for good design and the same potential for 'challenge' (acutally I would argue it has more potential for challenge, but I'm happy to agree to 'at least the same'), it is simply changing the emphasis to planning, improvising and group synergy.
This is all needed in UAS too, but the *emphasis* is different.
Razorbrains said:TLogan said: LAS will definitely make it harder in some situations such as : a pug with majority having a bad "loadout" equipped. I have no idea why people are saying they will now make content easier to compensate for LAS? No they definitely won't, and they wouldn't need to, let's not forget you won't be alone fighting these mobs the chances that one person with a crappy loadout will cause a group wipe is probably not high. All the other layers of difficulty will remain. There really seems to be a solution for those that just can't stand LAS : you can all be our monks in the world of Pantheon. Feign death, change your loadout anytime giving you that UAS you so crave, you're welcome.Of course LAS makes it easier, are you saying a bad loadout or first timers cant complete the content at all? No chance autowipe?
If any group without a perfect loadout can beat the boss then what happens when you repeat the content with a perfect loadout? Autowin is what it sounds like. Thats EZ mode.
With UAS, the content can be designed more difficult, where even with good execution random events can still wipe the group. Because people have access to all the spells in UAS, you can require certain spells to beat certain bosses or wipe, and even more difficult where mechanics are followed perfectly, but still the encounter is difficult because of RNG.
Nope. You are just assuming the devs will dumb it down just in case people don't load the right skills. It doesn't have to go that way at all.
Devs are expecting players to not always have the 'ideal' skils and to improvise and synergise to overcome that limitation.
This happens in UAS too. One player/class won't have all the skills needed and will have to do their best and improvise with the skills they have and coordinate with the group to compensate.
In LAS it will happen more often. That's the difference. Emphasis. Not overall difficulty or challenge (though I do think LAS has more potential for greater challenge purely because coming up against the lack of the perfect skill more often makes things more difficult, not less).
As I keep saying, I am not 100% convinced either. I think UAS would make it easier for devs to balance encounters. I think not being able to use skills you 'know' might be frustrating, but the devs seem fine with the added complexity of LAS, so I'm happy to trust them and give it a go. I'm trying not to make assumptions to support my misgivings. I accept that LAS has potential to be good or even better than UAS in Pantheon.
I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Counterfleche said:I am designing a game where you will be shown a random number between 1 and 20 and your goal is to add numbers to it to get the sum as close to 20 without going over (adding as few numbers as possible). In the UAS version, you have two hotbars, with a hotkey for every number between 1 and 20. In the LAS version, you have only 1 bar with 4 hotkeys and you get to pick the numbers. Which game is more fun? Which is more complex?
Weirdflex i guess
Okay sense you think you know so much about UAS to LAS than tell me why is basically every game that is using UAS simply making you use less than 8 buttons anyway?
WoW hunters, push like 5 buttons for there usually rotation
Demon hunter push like 7
Mages use like 6
Tanks anymore just try to proc Twlight Devastion(a pon towards my friend)
i really could go on but it just proves that where you see a flaw in something other games that are using UAS are alrdy making it to where you are using less abilities than than what Pantheon is allowing you to use, And also Games that use UAS as I've already mentioned use LAS features, Specializations/Talent Trees/Azerite Traits, i could honestly keep going but you'll just say something that probably isn't correct and keep thinking UAS is simply better in everyway without thinking that UAS can only truly exsist if you put LAS features somewhere anyway.
So keep going say it more complex, you can honestly say it all day long, it only allows me to realize you have no idea it isn't true.
Well, EQ wasn't *really* LAS as you *could* re-mem spells during combat (which would actually mitigate most of the dislike for most people). And WoW wasn't really LAS as the talent trees/specs were complex and different enough to be considered another 'class', really.
But that doesn't mean LAS is bad, I'm just saying.
I suppose the point really is that all systems have aspects of 'limitation'. Games and systems are pretty much defined by their limitations and boundaries.